With regard to the distribution of jobs in the government and all federal public agencies in the National Capital Region: (a) how many jobs were there in 2011 on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region; (b) how many jobs were there in 2012 on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region; (c) how many jobs were there in 2011 on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region; (d) how many jobs were there in 2012 on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region; (e) how many jobs on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region will be eliminated as a result of the cuts announced in the last budget; and (f) how many jobs on the Ontario side of the National Capital Region will be eliminated as a result of the cuts announced in the last budget?

With regard to the impact that the cuts announced in Budget 2012 will have on the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: (a) where will the increases or decreases occur in relation to the forecast amounts in place before the budget was tabled on March 29, 2012, broken down by institute; (b) for each institute in point (a), (i) what are the amounts of the planned increases or decreases in human resources and funding, (ii) will positions be eliminated and, if so, how many; (c) which initiatives, institutes or programs will be eliminated by Budget 2012; (d) what are the reductions in transfer payments to the provinces/territories and municipalities, broken down by (i) initiative, (ii) province/territory; and (e) which grant or contribution agreements will be reduced or cancelled, broken down by (i) program or initiative, (ii) recipient?

With regard to the impact of the cuts to the Public Health Agency of Canada announced in Budget 2012: (a) where will the increases or decreases occur in relation to the forecast amounts in place before the budget was tabled on March 29, 2012, broken down by (i) branch, (ii) initiative/program; (b) for each branch or program in point (a), (i) what are the amounts of the planned increases or decreases in human resources and funding, (ii) will positions be eliminated and, if so, how many; (c) which initiatives and/or programs will be eliminated by Budget 2012; (d) what are the reductions in transfer payments to the provinces/territories and municipalities, broken down by (i) initiative/program, (ii) province/territory; and (e) which grant or contribution agreements will be reduced or cancelled, broken down by (i) program/initiative, (ii) recipient?

With regard to the Nutrition North program: (a) what are all the recommendations made by the Nutrition North advisory board since its inception; (b) which of those recommendations have been implemented; (c) what is the rationale for implementing those recommendations; (d) what is the rationale for not implementing the rest of the recommendations; (e) since the implementation of the Nutrition North program, what cost-of-living research or evaluations have been done for the areas served by the Nutrition North program; (f) what research or evaluations have been completed and reported to the department on the effectiveness or short-comings of the program; and (g) what research or evaluations are planned for the program?

With regard to the RADARSAT Constellation program: (a) who is the minister responsible; (b) what are the names and titles of the main senior officials responsible; (c) what are the government’s intentions with regard to continuing the RADARSAT Constellation program and what are the reasons behind the government’s decision; (d) what is the name or names of the senior officials who made the written decision in (c) or the necessary recommendations; (e) did the 2012-2013 budget strategic review have an impact on the RADARSAT Constellation program and, if so, what; (f) was the initial projected timeline for each development phase of the RADARSAT Constellation program followed (based on the “major milestones” outlined in the Canadian Space Agency’s 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities) and, if not, what are the reasons that led to the delays; (g) will the first RADARSAT Constellation satellite still be launched during 2014-2015, as set out in the Canadian Space Agency’s 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities and, if not, what are the reasons that led to the delays, and the projected launch date; (h) will the second and third RADARSAT Constellation satellites still be launched during 2015-2016, as set out in the Canadian Space Agency’s 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities and, if not, what are the reasons that led to the delays, and the projected launch date; (i) what major changes, if any, is the government considering to the initial development plan for each phase of the RADARSAT Constellation (based on the “major milestones” outlined in the Canadian Space Agency’s 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities); (j) what are the titles of the specific cost-estimate documents or the political measures or actions the Minister of Industry referred to when answering the question asked in the House on May 16, 2012, by the Member for Burnaby–Douglas when he replied: “[the government] wants to deliver [the RADARSAT Constellation Mission] in a most cost-effective way”; (k) is the firm Macdonald, Dettwiler and Associates still the main contractor for completing the development of Phase D and subsequent phases of the RADARSAT Constellation; (l) are the firms MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue), COMDEV Limited, Magellan Aerospace, Bristol Aerospace, and MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates (Halifax) still the main subcontractors for completing the development of Phase D and subsequent phases of the RADARSAT Constellation; (m) what specific factors are behind the government’s decision to delay signing a contract with or providing the funds earmarked for Phase D to the firm Macdonald, Dettwiler and Associates in the 2012 federal budget; (n) does the government intend to honour the contracts with the main contractor and the main subcontractors or terminate them; (o) if the government intends to terminate the contract, what are the reasons behind this decision; (p) if the government intends to terminate the contract, what will be the costs or penalties incurred by the government, broken down by contract; (q) is the government currently seeking a new main contractor or new main subcontractors to carry out Phase D of the project or any other subsequent phase and, if so, (i) what is the reason behind the decision to seek a new contractor, (ii) has a new main contractor or have new main contractors been selected, (iii) has a new main subcontractor or have new main subcontractors been selected, (iv) has there been or will there be a new call for tenders; (r) if the answer to any of the questions in items (q)(i) to (q)(iv), inclusively, is yes, what is the new distribution in percentage and dollar amounts by province and region of the contracts’ regional industrial benefits; (s) what are the most recent overall estimates of the cost of the RADARSAT Constellation; (t) are these estimates higher or lower than the program’s original estimates, and by how much; (u) what unforeseen situations or amendments to the initial program led to these variances in the Constellation cost estimates; (v) what proportion (in percentage and dollar amounts) of the overall project costs is related to incorporating the Automated Identification System (AIS) into the Constellation; (w) how much money has been allocated to the overall project to date; and (x) how much money has been allocated to Phase D of the project to date?

Mr.Speaker, I appreciate being given the floor to speak about an urgent and troubling situation. This week, the most consequential investment agreement that Canada has signed since NAFTA is set to be ratified without any debate or study in Parliament.

The text of the Canada-China foreign promotion and protection agreement, known as FIPA, was only made public a few weeks ago. The few experts who have looked into the fine print of the treaty are raising serious concerns for investors, Canadian industries and even provincial governments. The NDP has called for this agreement to be studied, debated and brought forward for a vote, but to no avail. That is why today, as a last resort, we are calling for an emergency debate on this controversial treaty.

Chinese investment is going to be a big part of Canada's economic future and Canadian business needs access to China. However, we need to be smart about how we engage with this increasingly assertive global power. While Canada has resources China wants, we have our own interests to advance as well. Before locking ourselves into a long-term investment treaty, we need to ensure we are not overlooking the details that could cost us dearly down the line.

Osgoode Hall's Dr. Gus Van Harten, an expert in international trade law, points out that the treaty may be unconstitutional because it allows Chinese investors to dispute laws and regulations passed by provinces. Is this true? We do not know because the text of the treaty was revealed a little more than a month ago and provincial governments have not had the chance to complete an analysis.

We also seem to have sacrificed core Canadian values on the negotiating table. Since 2004, Canada has insisted on transparency in the dispute resolution process. No more. Under the agreement, Chinese investors, including state-owned enterprises, could sue the Canadian government in secret. Presided over by unaccountable arbitrators, these tribunals can award billions of dollars in damages to Chinese investors. It is not only hypothetical, Chinese investors are keenly aware of how to use these powers. Ping An, a Chinese insurance company, is currently suing the government of Belgium for $3 billion through a FIPA-style agreement signed with that country.

Does the deal even gain us reciprocal access to China? Under the agreement, China will retain all the non-conforming measures that have made it notoriously difficult for foreign investors to enter its market. Canada will retain the same right on paper, but in practice we have already eliminated most of those barriers. Therefore, in effect, it will remain far easier for the Chinese investors to snap up Canadian companies than vice versa. By locking in relatively open access to the Canadian market for 31 years, we are essentially giving up all the bargaining chips we might have used to pry open the Chinese economy for Canadian investors in a more reciprocal way. Is this FIPA really the best deal we could get?

What scope will it leave for future regulatory changes? As we grow the Canadian conversation about sustainable resource development and diversifying our economy, we want to leave scope for policy innovation. Even now, the Canadian government is scrambling to rethink the beleaguered Investment Canada Act and delay an approval of the CNOOC Nexen purchase. The FIPA makes allowances for existing Canadian policy, but new regulations could be subject to challenge if the treaty is locked in at the end of the month. We need to look ahead because once we sign on the dotted line, we are locked in. While NAFTA can be cancelled at six months' notice, the terms of the China-Canada FIPA are enforced for a minimum of 31 years. According to Gus Van Harten, “The treaty has a 15-year minimum term, then requires one year's notice to terminate, and then lasts another 15 years for all investments that exist at the time of termination”.

Before binding Canadians to the terms of this treaty, these issues need to be debated on the Parliament of our country. Even supporters of this treaty are arguing that it needs a public debate. However, time has run out. It is now clear that the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is set to be ratified without any debate in the House. This would be a break from the established practice of government, which has typically sought Parliament's approval for treaties of this magnitude, and it would be a disservice to all Canadians who deserve to hear the merits of this treaty debated.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to grant my request for an emergency debate on this treaty.

I thank the hon. member for Ottawa Centre for once again bringing this matter to the House. While I am sure it is a matter of great concern for many members and very important, as I have ruled on two previous occasions, I do not find that it meets the test for granting an emergency debate.